..is a big thing. We had several computers when I was a kid, but my parents took an active role in my education; and I turned out alright. Perhaps the problem is that parents are using the computer as a substitute and not just as a tool.
..but college students are left behind. Primarily because a lot of them are not actually interested in college. I mean, getting into school has more to do with money than ability; and getting out has more to do with a couple of hazing rituals and a nice certificate. Not that there should be some trackable database, but as far as I can tell, there already is: the social security number. For public schools, this is already accessable. Sounds like someone in the Department of Education wants to do statistical analysis with information that is already out there. (Just ask a credit card company that says you're pre-approved and they'll (without your help) send you a filled out application: name, date of birth, address and social security number.)
And what we know as "the truth" is already consistent in our heads. It might be unbelieveable, "but it did happen." Mix that with the fact that there is an infinite magnitude more "untruths" than there are "truths" and it becomes a lot harder to pick out something that seems consistent but is also untrue. (For every truth, there are a set of true conditions, concatenated. There are 2^n - 1 untrue things this truth can be turned into.) The bigger the lie, the more bits you flip, and the harder the consistency check becomes. The frontal lobe deals with perception of reality, as far as I understand; thus, it makes sense that this check would happen there.
..the GUI has something magical to do with storage hardware plugged into the computer. Fact: it doesn't. I mean, if you really want the Mac to release the disk, use a paperclip. But it's not a design flaw that the OS wants to keep the system in a consistent state. (Of course, that shouldn't keep the computer from booting.) Also, some of the features he's asking for are not even meaningful. How do you sort a list when the comparison operator doesn't even have a partial ordering because it's multiple, matched operators. Is it really that hard to insert extra 0s into a number to get it to sort? As for his "spaces in URLs" idea, the problem is that you can then have multiple files that fill the same request. Shouldn't users be clicking on long URLs, anyway, and typing short ones? Trust, me I don't fill out online orders in the URL: I use the website provided.
That's a supercluster, not a grid. The Grid is a type of organizational system which brings together resources; but does not necessarily imply high throughput or latency on computation.
Not to mention, that one of the things that happened in this election was a shift in demographic voting trends. They should be asking why those voters shifter, not pretending that there is no shift. Previous elections are not full perdictors of future elections: while there may be correlation, there is no hard relationship.
Have to go to the bathroom during the comercial break while watching the football game? Don't even think about it. You had better go during the (explicit) half-time show, I guess.
Never leave the kids watching a DVD: they might not pay attention during the previews, and prison will ruin the rest of their precious lives.
Walmart sells $50 beinnger guitars, which I wish I would have gotten oh-so-long ago when I was a kid. But I did get a harmonica once, and kazoos and tambourines can keep kids busy forever. (Though, these are less than quite gifts.)
Peasant's Quest
on
Humor in Games?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
..is raw comedy: #1, because it's raw; #2, because it's comedy. The guys at Videlectrix really knew what they were doing when they put this together. (Check out the trailer too.) Haldo!
..but I've made a lot of stuff out of left over electronic components; for instance, Dolby, the Stereo Bug. But he is form without function. (Though he does emit good chi.)
The situation is slightly more complex than that. The Jesuits had actually come to the same conclusions, but talked about accidents instead of the reality. Furthermore, Copernicus was praised, not persecuted, for the theory that bears his name. The strongest proof, back then, that the earth stood still was that we do not feel it move. In fact, this is the same thing the Michelson-Morley experiment found, at least with regard to light. One of Galileo's friends, a cardinal in Rome, warned him that unless he had more proof that the physical reality reflected his model, he had better lay off saying it was more than mathematics. Galileo devised something about the tides being that proof, an argument that we now know to be in error. The real proof that the earth moves is the stellar parallax: if the sphere if the stars is fixed and the earth stands still, so will the stars, which we see; but if the stars are fixed and the earth moves, the stars will move in small circles. This was not detected until much later, long after Galileo's death. The cause of his trial is probably due to the fact that in "Dialogue" he puts the argument of Pope Urban VIII -- that there are infinite ways to cause any effect, and that effects do not necessarily imply causes; and that there is something between the numbers and the world -- in the (ineffective) mouth of Simplicio, the idiot Aristotelian. There is some evidence that Galileo did, in fact, mean the retraction that he wrote up with Dominican lawyers after his trial; and the myth that he did not recant, but rather whispered "but it moves" as a postscript to his official statement, can be shown to be an invention.
..are smarter methods and mechanisms. The problem with most authentication schemes is that they give information away. Cryptography protocols that are found to be lacking generally give away more information than the designer knew about. (This is for the same reason that security mechanism composition imply more secure mechanisms.) Honestly, I think Zero-Knowledge Proof protocols are really neat, and may help solve part of the problem.
Actually, it was a different Church and a different kind of philosophy. Aquinas revolutionized the world -- at least the understanding of religion in the West -- with his systematic system of Theology. This kind of systematic exploration made it's way into Astronomy and thus into Physics with Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. (Kepler, incidentally, was a better astronomer than Galileo; Galileo was certain that the obrits of planets MUST be circular because the circle is the perfect shape. Kepler realized (and told Galileo, who still didn't believe him) that the spheres must be elliptical.) Galileo, it turns out, got in trouble with the Church for a couple of reasons. He took a worldview that said that mathematics is reality. The Church contended that mathematics is only a model of reality. This was a time when scientists were still deciding whether observations made by instruments were of the same validity as obesevations made by the senses directly. (Today, imagine if we placed what we see on the news as being of the same credibility as what we see ourselves.) He was taken to trial and then retracted the definitive reality of the Copernican system, saying that it, at best, saved the accidents. This meant that it was a good model, but no one knew the reality. In fact, the stellar parallax, which was the final proof Galileo needed, was not detected until the mid 19th century. Then he only had a (mistaken) proof about the sun causing the tides. Newton, on the other hand, was not a Catholic -- he protested the King giving a chair at University to a Benedictine, which eventually led to a Revolution that removed King James II from his throne because he was a Catholic. In fact, Newton was not an orthodox Christian, believing a variant of the Arian heresy. He wrote quite a bit about the Roman Pontif being the Whore of Babylon and tried to calculate the date of the Second Coming. What we must remember is that philosophy was not so big back then that one man could no master large parts of it. Now, with so many different fields, scientists must diversify and can not be experts in all of philosophy or science. But he was certainly not obligated by any ecclesiastical body to do this or that in order to do his work.
..I can Thunderbird. Seriously! I've had my email address for 5 years now. It's a university address I had when I was undergrad and back then I had other addresses forwarding to it, some of which still do and have been around since before spam was a problem. It's been on class webpages, etc. and so it gets quite a bit of spam. Still, I kind of like it; and I still get 20 junk emails for every real email, but Thunderbird kills (on average) all but one, and has never stuffed a real message in the Junk folder. It's much easier for an email client to police messages than it is for law enforcement to police message senders.
Third world is a Cold War term. The first world is the world of Captitalism and Democracy. The second world is the world of Communism. The third world is everything else. It was a way of dividing the planet into friends, foes, and others during the Cold War.
..that I think is spiffy is using the partition I would normally use for/tmp as . Then, I mount a tmpfs of that size on/tmp. This makes a large performance improvement for anything that uses a lot of temp space, because everything/tmp would normally handle is done in RAM until RAM fills up, at which point we're back to using the disk.
No.
Q.E.D.
It says that a non-trivial axiomatic system (that is, one that can represent a complex system like the natural numbers) can not be both complete and consistent, in all cases. But there are some things that can be proved for special, limited cases; and we err on the side of consistency over completeness.
..if you can prove the program. I know that a lot of people look down on axiomatic semantics and model checkers; but I also know some people that started in that area a long time ago that still believe in it, and even more that are trying to get faculty appointments out of this rebounding field. If you can prove a program does what you expect it to and it, it turn, can be shown to prove what you really wanted, I don't see the problem. Maybe some of our theoretical mathematicians just need a dose of practical computer science.
Considering the number of times I have to recharge the batteries in my camera, I'm not that upset. A simpler, quicker, longer lasting recharge is a godsend for that silly battery sucker. If NEC is converting existing facilities, who's to say that they won't start making larger products? But even if they don't, my (mayhaps future) electric razor will be much happier, and much more organic.
Slashdot Mirror
..is being written before you.
..is a big thing. We had several computers when I was a kid, but my parents took an active role in my education; and I turned out alright. Perhaps the problem is that parents are using the computer as a substitute and not just as a tool.
..but college students are left behind. Primarily because a lot of them are not actually interested in college. I mean, getting into school has more to do with money than ability; and getting out has more to do with a couple of hazing rituals and a nice certificate. Not that there should be some trackable database, but as far as I can tell, there already is: the social security number. For public schools, this is already accessable. Sounds like someone in the Department of Education wants to do statistical analysis with information that is already out there. (Just ask a credit card company that says you're pre-approved and they'll (without your help) send you a filled out application: name, date of birth, address and social security number.)
And what we know as "the truth" is already consistent in our heads. It might be unbelieveable, "but it did happen." Mix that with the fact that there is an infinite magnitude more "untruths" than there are "truths" and it becomes a lot harder to pick out something that seems consistent but is also untrue. (For every truth, there are a set of true conditions, concatenated. There are 2^n - 1 untrue things this truth can be turned into.) The bigger the lie, the more bits you flip, and the harder the consistency check becomes. The frontal lobe deals with perception of reality, as far as I understand; thus, it makes sense that this check would happen there.
..the GUI has something magical to do with storage hardware plugged into the computer. Fact: it doesn't. I mean, if you really want the Mac to release the disk, use a paperclip. But it's not a design flaw that the OS wants to keep the system in a consistent state. (Of course, that shouldn't keep the computer from booting.) Also, some of the features he's asking for are not even meaningful. How do you sort a list when the comparison operator doesn't even have a partial ordering because it's multiple, matched operators. Is it really that hard to insert extra 0s into a number to get it to sort? As for his "spaces in URLs" idea, the problem is that you can then have multiple files that fill the same request. Shouldn't users be clicking on long URLs, anyway, and typing short ones? Trust, me I don't fill out online orders in the URL: I use the website provided.
That's a supercluster, not a grid. The Grid is a type of organizational system which brings together resources; but does not necessarily imply high throughput or latency on computation.
Not to mention, that one of the things that happened in this election was a shift in demographic voting trends. They should be asking why those voters shifter, not pretending that there is no shift. Previous elections are not full perdictors of future elections: while there may be correlation, there is no hard relationship.
Have to go to the bathroom during the comercial break while watching the football game? Don't even think about it. You had better go during the (explicit) half-time show, I guess.
Never leave the kids watching a DVD: they might not pay attention during the previews, and prison will ruin the rest of their precious lives.
(All in good fun.)
..Christina Cifuentes (and her thesis) is who you want to talk to.
Walmart sells $50 beinnger guitars, which I wish I would have gotten oh-so-long ago when I was a kid. But I did get a harmonica once, and kazoos and tambourines can keep kids busy forever. (Though, these are less than quite gifts.)
..is raw comedy: #1, because it's raw; #2, because it's comedy. The guys at Videlectrix really knew what they were doing when they put this together. (Check out the trailer too.) Haldo!
..but I've made a lot of stuff out of left over electronic components; for instance, Dolby, the Stereo Bug. But he is form without function. (Though he does emit good chi.)
Three processes? Good grief! Give them four -- or even two -- but not three. It's not just a good idea; it's the Law.
The situation is slightly more complex than that. The Jesuits had actually come to the same conclusions, but talked about accidents instead of the reality. Furthermore, Copernicus was praised, not persecuted, for the theory that bears his name. The strongest proof, back then, that the earth stood still was that we do not feel it move. In fact, this is the same thing the Michelson-Morley experiment found, at least with regard to light. One of Galileo's friends, a cardinal in Rome, warned him that unless he had more proof that the physical reality reflected his model, he had better lay off saying it was more than mathematics. Galileo devised something about the tides being that proof, an argument that we now know to be in error. The real proof that the earth moves is the stellar parallax: if the sphere if the stars is fixed and the earth stands still, so will the stars, which we see; but if the stars are fixed and the earth moves, the stars will move in small circles. This was not detected until much later, long after Galileo's death. The cause of his trial is probably due to the fact that in "Dialogue" he puts the argument of Pope Urban VIII -- that there are infinite ways to cause any effect, and that effects do not necessarily imply causes; and that there is something between the numbers and the world -- in the (ineffective) mouth of Simplicio, the idiot Aristotelian. There is some evidence that Galileo did, in fact, mean the retraction that he wrote up with Dominican lawyers after his trial; and the myth that he did not recant, but rather whispered "but it moves" as a postscript to his official statement, can be shown to be an invention.
..are smarter methods and mechanisms. The problem with most authentication schemes is that they give information away. Cryptography protocols that are found to be lacking generally give away more information than the designer knew about. (This is for the same reason that security mechanism composition imply more secure mechanisms.) Honestly, I think Zero-Knowledge Proof protocols are really neat, and may help solve part of the problem.
Actually, it was a different Church and a different kind of philosophy. Aquinas revolutionized the world -- at least the understanding of religion in the West -- with his systematic system of Theology. This kind of systematic exploration made it's way into Astronomy and thus into Physics with Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. (Kepler, incidentally, was a better astronomer than Galileo; Galileo was certain that the obrits of planets MUST be circular because the circle is the perfect shape. Kepler realized (and told Galileo, who still didn't believe him) that the spheres must be elliptical.) Galileo, it turns out, got in trouble with the Church for a couple of reasons. He took a worldview that said that mathematics is reality. The Church contended that mathematics is only a model of reality. This was a time when scientists were still deciding whether observations made by instruments were of the same validity as obesevations made by the senses directly. (Today, imagine if we placed what we see on the news as being of the same credibility as what we see ourselves.) He was taken to trial and then retracted the definitive reality of the Copernican system, saying that it, at best, saved the accidents. This meant that it was a good model, but no one knew the reality. In fact, the stellar parallax, which was the final proof Galileo needed, was not detected until the mid 19th century. Then he only had a (mistaken) proof about the sun causing the tides. Newton, on the other hand, was not a Catholic -- he protested the King giving a chair at University to a Benedictine, which eventually led to a Revolution that removed King James II from his throne because he was a Catholic. In fact, Newton was not an orthodox Christian, believing a variant of the Arian heresy. He wrote quite a bit about the Roman Pontif being the Whore of Babylon and tried to calculate the date of the Second Coming. What we must remember is that philosophy was not so big back then that one man could no master large parts of it. Now, with so many different fields, scientists must diversify and can not be experts in all of philosophy or science. But he was certainly not obligated by any ecclesiastical body to do this or that in order to do his work.
..I can Thunderbird. Seriously! I've had my email address for 5 years now. It's a university address I had when I was undergrad and back then I had other addresses forwarding to it, some of which still do and have been around since before spam was a problem. It's been on class webpages, etc. and so it gets quite a bit of spam. Still, I kind of like it; and I still get 20 junk emails for every real email, but Thunderbird kills (on average) all but one, and has never stuffed a real message in the Junk folder. It's much easier for an email client to police messages than it is for law enforcement to police message senders.
..did Mordor take all of Gondor's doors? What is up with that?
Third world is a Cold War term. The first world is the world of Captitalism and Democracy. The second world is the world of Communism. The third world is everything else. It was a way of dividing the planet into friends, foes, and others during the Cold War.
..that I think is spiffy is using the partition I would normally use for /tmp as . Then, I mount a tmpfs of that size on /tmp. This makes a large performance improvement for anything that uses a lot of temp space, because everything /tmp would normally handle is done in RAM until RAM fills up, at which point we're back to using the disk.
And if the computer screws up, blame becomes a slightly fuzzy concept.
No. Q.E.D. It says that a non-trivial axiomatic system (that is, one that can represent a complex system like the natural numbers) can not be both complete and consistent, in all cases. But there are some things that can be proved for special, limited cases; and we err on the side of consistency over completeness.
..if you can prove the program. I know that a lot of people look down on axiomatic semantics and model checkers; but I also know some people that started in that area a long time ago that still believe in it, and even more that are trying to get faculty appointments out of this rebounding field. If you can prove a program does what you expect it to and it, it turn, can be shown to prove what you really wanted, I don't see the problem. Maybe some of our theoretical mathematicians just need a dose of practical computer science.
Considering the number of times I have to recharge the batteries in my camera, I'm not that upset. A simpler, quicker, longer lasting recharge is a godsend for that silly battery sucker. If NEC is converting existing facilities, who's to say that they won't start making larger products? But even if they don't, my (mayhaps future) electric razor will be much happier, and much more organic.
So the Underwear Gnomes are on the internet now, eh? I'll have to keep an eye on that. (Does it feel drafty to anyone else?)